Published on:

By

GROCHOCINSKI v. MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW, LLP, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2013 – Google Scholar.

The Seventh Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of this legal malpractice case filed by a bankruptcy trustee against Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw.  This case has garnered some attention in the legal ethics press. The only problem with this case is that it is unique and it is unlikely to have any precedential value.

The case began with a contract dispute between Spehar Capital and CMGT, Inc., a start-up company with no assets to speak of. Mayer Brown represented CMGT. Mayer Brown’s only important task was to obtain financing for the CMGT.  The financing never materialized.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Goldfine v. BARACK, FERRAZZANO, KIRSCHBAUM AND PERLMAN, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 6th Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division, has affirmed a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against a defendant law firm. The allegation of negligence was that the law firm failed to preserve the plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Securities laws against Shearson Lehman. In short, the alleged error was the failure to timely file a claim for rescission against Shearson Lehman.

In a legal malpractice case, the court must always begin with an analysis of the underlying transaction or the underlying lawsuit. Here, the plaintiffs had a valid claim under the Illinois Securities Laws against Shearson Lehman. Under the Illinois Securities Law, the purchaser has six months from the time he learns of the right of rescission. The law firm failed to serve the notice of rescission and the Illinois courts rejected the plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

This is a complaint filed by the ARDC, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The ARDC’s complaint alleges that an attorney, Tina Marie Jacobs, filed a foreclosure case against a homeowner. The ARDC alleges that the lawyer failed to provide the homeowner with a grace period notice required by the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. The statute sets forth the exact text the grace period notice must contain:

“The notice required in this subsection (c) shall state the date on which the notice was mailed, shall be headed in bold 14-point type “GRACE PERIOD NOTICE”, and shall state the following in 14-point type: “YOUR LOAN IS MORE THAN 30 DAYS PAST DUE. YOU MAY BE EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. IT MAY BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO SEEK APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING. YOU HAVE A GRACE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO OBTAIN APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING. DURING THE GRACE PERIOD, THE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM TAKING ANY LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAY GRACE PERIOD IF YOU OBTAIN HOUSING COUNSELING FROM AN APPROVED HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCY. A LIST OF APPROVED COUNSELING AGENCIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

VALUKAS v. BOTTI MARINACCIO, LTD, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is a decision dismissing a divorce malpractice claim on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiff, James Valukas, hired the defendant law firm to represent him in his divorce. Valukas claimed that the law firm negligently drafted a marital settlement agreement, allowing his ex-wife to make a claim for a portion of the payout on certain stock options.

Defendant raised a statute of repose defense, arguing that the alleged error occurred outside of the limitations period. The statute of repose bars any claim against an attorney that occurred more than 6 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Filed June 12.

The respondent, an attorney, was the President and Treasurer of her condo association. She allegedly used $5,666.29 in condominium funds for personal purchases. The Condominium association apparently reported her to the ARDC which filed a complaint. The Hearing Board states that the respondent had $175,000 in student loans.

This is another example of a lawyer engaging in misconduct in non-legal duties and suffering punishment as a result. Also, the conversion was extremely easy to prove because the association’s funds were used for personal items.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

KLINGELHOEFER v. PARKER, GROSSART, BAHENSKY & BEUCKE, LLP, 20 Neb. App. 825 – Neb: Court of Appeals 2013 – Google Scholar.

This case concerns whether a member of an LLC can sue for legal malpractice the lawyers who represented the entity. The Nebraska Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff, Donald Klingelhoefer, lacked standing to sue.

Nebraska follows the traditional rule that the shareholder of a corporation or member of a limited liability company lacks standing because the corporation or LLC suffered the injury, not the shareholder or member.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

This is a disciplinary complaint filed by the ARDC against a lawyer. The ARDC alleges that the 93 year old client entrusted $80,000 to the lawyer. The lawyer used $79,963 of the funds for his own expenses and did not use any of the money for the benefit of the elderly client. Elder abuse is a fast-growing area of the attorney discipline regime.

This is a complaint only. It has not been proven. If true, it is a dreadful story.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This case is a somewhat routine affirmance of a bank fraud conviction and the rejection of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Defendant alleged that her lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call certain witnesses at the trial of the case. In the criminal world, an ineffective assistance claim is equivalent in many ways to a legal malpractice claim. If there is a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant is sometimes entitled to a new trial.

Here, the defendant fired her lawyers, but was assisted by stand by counsel at her trial. Counsel decided not to call certain witnesses because the potential risk of their negative testimony far outweighed the potential reward. This case makes it clear that these decisions are for the lawyer to make at trial, except in unusual circumstances.  The Seventh Circuit explains the rules applicable to witness testimony issues: “A “lawyer’s decision to call or not to call a witness is a strategic decision generally not subject to review. The Constitution does not oblige counsel to present each and every witness that is suggested to him.” United States v. Best, 426 F.3d 937, 945 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Williams, 106 F.3d 1362, 1367 (7th Cir. 1997)). Indeed, Parker acknowledges that the decision whether to call a witness was her attorney’s to make.”

Comment: the point here is that it is almost impossible to win a legal malpractice case on the ground that the lawyer failed to call a witness. That decision was the lawyer’s to make in his professional judgment.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

EXACT SOFTWARE NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. DeMOISEY, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is a dispute between an attorney and a client concerning an attorney lien. Such disputes are common. This case illustrates the correct way to protect a disputed legal fee with an attorney lien.

The Sixth Circuit has affirmed a legal fee award of $1.4 million to a lawyer who brought proceedings to enforce an attorney lien. The underlying dispute was a software licensing dispute between two companies, which occurred in the federal district court. Infocon was to receive a $5 million settlement from Exact Software, Inc. Just before the settlement was finalized, Infocon fired its lawyer, J Fox DeMoisey. DeMoisey placed a charging lien on the proceeds of the litigation.  The district court froze the disputed portion of the settlement ($1.2 million) pending the outcome of litigation.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

CLAUSON & ATWOOD v. PROFESSIONALS DIRECT INSURANCE CO., Dist. Court, D. New Hampshire 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is yet another development in the huge and growing area of litigation between lawyers and their legal malpractice insurers.

Here, the insurance company obtained summary judgment against the lawyers on the ground that the claim was not made in the policy period. Once again, the lawyers did little to help their own cause – they failed to promptly report the claim to the insurance company.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
111 W Washington St, #1437
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.357.1515

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design